Running Head: MODULE FOUR ASSIGNMENT 1

Module Four Assignment

Bryttni D Pugh

University of North Carolina at Charlotte

MODULE FOUR ASSIGNMENT 2

Module Four Assignment

Abraham Cherrix, a sixteen year old with Hodgkins disease, refused to undergo a second

session of chemotherapy subsequent to the first session that engendered baldness, discomfort,

and notable weakness. His parents were in favor of declining the recommended treatment and

attempting an herb remedy from Tijuana, Mexico that is less likely to cure their sons form of

cancer. Although the teenager feared passing away with a higher dosage, he was advised that,

with about three sessions of chemotherapy, his disease would diminish because it is one of the

most curable of cancers (Caplan, 2006). Hodgkins disease is correlated with a survival rate

between 85 to 90 percent if the patient were to incorporate radiation within his treatment.

Fortunately, the court advised that Abraham receive a radiation amplified treatment administered

by an oncologist (Caplan, 2006).

I disagree with the ultimate decision and the choices the Cherrix family made along the

way because the parents agreed with their sons desire to not receive further rounds of

chemotherapy, disregarding statistics and the high chances of curability. According to USA

Today, they acquired medical neglect charges and shared the custody of their son with social

services (Moore, 2006). Despite the family support to prevent Abraham from enduring any

additional side effects of chemotherapy, the court should be primarily responsible for the

decision on whether or not a minor like Abraham should receive treatment for cancer. They are

more inclined to seek the best and/or a curable treatment through medical professionals without

holding bias. The patient, although the one suffering from the disease and side effects, is too

young to understand the process in detail; he may have input but will not decide upon the best

decision for his health. The parents are not medical professionals, and their bias against

chemotherapy could have hindered the chances of their son being cancer-free sooner because of
MODULE FOUR ASSIGNMENT 3

the discomfort he was in after the first session. The court would be able to provide the family

with knowledgeable doctors who are open to working with them to allow them to pursue their

ideas about healing (Caplan, 2006). The Cherrix family had disagreements with the doctors

recommendation, but the professional was able to accommodate their wishes, especially since

they found a doctor supportive of standard medical healing.

Regarding cancer treatment for minors, there should be a policy implemented that states

that minors with cancer should not be in charge of deciding upon what route of treatment to take;

instead, the court will contact medical professionals who will seek the best form of treatment for

the patient. The doctors should be able to provide the minor and his or her parents with statistics

about the success rates, possible side effects the treatment may cause, the duration, and any other

pieces of information they recommend. This will prevent arguments and severe legal actions

from occurring because they will be more knowledgeable of the situation. However, the family

and patient may not be knowledgeable enough to make the best choice of treatment for his or her

specific cancer or disease. It is like any other medical situation; if you want to fix a broken bone,

you are not going to disregard the recommended use for a sling or cast because of its unpleasing

appearance. You will most likely follow the doctors orders to use one because of its

effectiveness to treat your broken bone. Cancer is more severe than a broken bone, though, and

may need court involvement to offer better insight on treatments and resources.

This policy incorporates the ethical principles of beneficence, the duty of healthcare

providers to do well and benefit others, and nonmalificence, the prevention of needless harm.

The courts decision to decide upon the route to take with a doctors help will prevent the

patients cancer or disease from worsening and will help cure it. Like Abraham, his cancer

returned two months after the first round of chemotherapy, and the alternative herbal treatment
MODULE FOUR ASSIGNMENT 4

he took had no evidence of success. Perhaps if he did not seek further treatment, his cancer

would not have improved and would have harmed him. The supportive doctor he had that

respected his values and preferences benefitted him in a different way through

accommodations and finding a new treatment to cure his disease. Although the court and the

doctor kept watch on Abraham through the decided radiation treatment, I believe that the teen

should have simply continued chemotherapy, especially knowing that Hodgkins disease is able

to be cured after a few rounds.

MODULE FOUR ASSIGNMENT 5

References

Caplan, A. (2006, August 16). Opinion: Right resolution for teen cancer case: Agreement over

teen cancer patient's care makes a lot of sense (Commentary). MSNBC.com. Retrieved

from http://www.msnbc.com/id/14376337/ns/health-health_care/t/right-resolution-

difficult-case/#.VTgXJZMUPEs.

Moore, M. T. (2006, Jul 11). Va. teen fights for right to pick Hodgkin's treatment - Judge to rule

next week whether boy can refuse chemo for herbal remedy. USA TODAY (Arlington,

VA), p. 9A.. Retrieved

from http://infoweb.newsbank.com/resources/doc/nb/news/11E5EA20057FFD50?p=AW

NB.